I would like to deliver this statement on
behalf of Estonia and my own country Ireland.

Let me
begin by welcoming UNICEF's focus on evaluating its emergency work and
commending your openness and transparency in sharing the findings of
these evaluations. UNICEF's drive to focus on results is very positive,
but 'results for whom?' is an important
consideration.

Level 1
Emergencies: We note that the review
highlights a lack of evaluation of Level 1 emergencies. Given that this
is where the bulk of UNICEF's operations are, we strongly encourage that
a system is put in place to ensure that an acceptable level of
evaluations are carried out for this type of programming. Its nature is
often quite different from the Level 3 emergencies and it would be
important to generate lesson learning and best practice specific to this
type of programming.

Challenges
and Limitations: The issues identified as
limitations to evaluating humanitarian action, such as unclear programme
objectives, results frameworks in flux, lack of baseline data, should
be the exception rather than the rule. In most cases some kind of
baseline can be established, and as a result, programme objectives can
be clear. Results frameworks in these contexts can have a sufficient
degree of flexibility built in, however they are still a very important
management tool and if designed properly can be responsive to the
changing context. The report also notes that there are clear challenges
in regard to joint evaluations. It would be interesting to hear how
UNICEF plans to address this
issue.

Results Focus:
The report notes that very few exercises
have focused on results achieved. For this to change, the culture of
results based management needs to be firmly embedded across the
organisation and the project cycle. If an evaluation is to focus on
results achieved, there must be an initial baseline, clear objectives,
targets and indicators. For humanitarian programming, UNICEF must ensure
that they are able to define results that are appropriate to the
operational context.

Informing
programming and policy: It is clear that
the evaluations conducted have provided valuable lesson learning and
examples of best practice. It would be useful to understand if and how
this systematically influences programming decisions and informs policy
at the organisation level, and indeed what systems are in place to
ensure that this happens. Going one step further, it is possible that
this focus on evaluating humanitarian action should inform the
international humanitarian community and improve
performance.

Equity Focus:
The finding that eight of the reports
provided evidence that UNICEF's equity focus had not been achieved is
worrying. As a priority next step, UNICEF must reflect on how the equity
focus can be effectively applied in its humanitarian work. The report
points out that participation and accountability is key. We would
suggest that a very clear target group (based on a solid context
analysis and needs assessment) and a targeting strategy is equally
key.